Public Bill Committee

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
PB 12 Unison Cymru Wales
PB 13 John Kelloway

David Amess: Good morning everyone, and welcome back.

Hywel Williams: On a point of order, Mr Amess. In early September we had an orderly and well informed debate on S4C and its funding. I have been approached by many people in Wales over the past few weeks who had believed that the Secretary of State will be responsible for the adequate funding of the channel, which was the basis for our debate on 15 September, but the Government apparently entered into an agreement with the BBC on 13 September, two days previously. New clause 63A(2)(d) of the 2006 agreement, which I have here, states that between 2015 and 2017 it will be for the BBC, not the Secretary of State, to determine how much funding it gives to S4C from the licence fee.
The Minister stated that the agreement had
“been laid in Parliament this afternoon.”––[Official Report, Public Bodies Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2011; c. 188.]
How can we have had a proper debate in the morning sitting at 9 am, and in the afternoon sitting at 1 pm, when many Members would not have been aware of the agreement or its contents? Will you advise me on how we may revisit that matter, Mr Amess?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr Amess. I made it clear to the Committee that the agreement had been laid before Parliament on the very afternoon on which the Committee sat. It was clear that the negotiations on funding, which had been ongoing, were concluded up to that point and that negotiations on governance arrangements were continuing between the BBC and S4C. The Committee cannot have been in any doubt about the state of play. Indeed, there was no way that the Committee could have had more information than was made available. I hope the Committee feels not only that I plainly set out the position, but that there was no further position that could have been set out at that stage.

David Amess: I have listened carefully to the point of order and to the Minister’s response, and I am not prepared to allow the matter to be reopened and debated now. The Committee has heard what the hon. Member for Arfon has said, and it is entirely up to him whether he wants to raise the issue on Report.

Clause 4  - Power to modify funding arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hurd: It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair after a short break in proceedings, Mr Amess, during which time various Opposition Members have been elevated or moved in some direction by their leader. It would be churlish if Government Members did not offer our congratulations—or commiserations—where appropriate.
Clause 4 confers on Ministers the power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of a body or office listed in schedule 4. The Government intend, for example, to reform the Drinking Water Inspectorate by allowing it to recover its costs from the water industry, which will bring that body in line with the existing principle that businesses that benefit from regulation should bear the cost of regulation, not the taxpayer. As with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, the use of clause 4 will be restricted by the conditions that we have discussed at length and will continue to discuss throughout our considerations. Those conditions include the provision in clause 8 that Ministers may only make an order that they consider
“serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions”.
A change of funding that would leave a body unable properly to carry out its public functions, for example, would be unlikely to meet those benchmarks, which provides an important reassurance to Parliament, to the bodies listed in schedule 4 and, ultimately, to the public we serve.
I further remind the Committee that no body or office may be listed in any of the Bill’s schedules unless Parliament has given its approval through the primary legislative process. The Government’s position is that ultimate decisions on the allocation of funding must rest with Ministers, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of public services by central Government and for public expenditure within their spending review settlements. It is also right that Ministers have the assurance that public money is being spent appropriately. In the case of most non-departmental public bodies, Ministers or Departments must be consulted by public bodies before they exercise certain financial powers, such as borrowing or capital expenditure.
We believe that the powers conferred by clause 4 on Ministers are entirely in keeping with that position and do not establish a new status quo, but rather reaffirm ministerial accountability for public expenditure and create the framework for a series of useful reforms to public bodies. On that basis I ask that the clause stand part.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I hope you had a good recess.
We do not wish to raise many issues about clause 4. We have some concerns about the impact on specific bodies, which would be better raised when discussing those bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended,accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4  - Power to modify funding arrangements: bodies and offices

Amendment made: 9,in schedule 4, page21,line9, leave out ‘Civil Justice Council.’.—(Mr Heath.)

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move amendment 58,in schedule 4, page21,line14, leave out ‘Natural England’.
We want to ask the Minister why Natural England has been included in the clause. Natural England has important powers relating to awarding grants and designating areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Its role includes managing some national nature reserves, overseeing access to open country and, of course, regulating. The point is that it is an extremely important body, responsible for the administration of numerous grants schemes and frameworks that finance the development and conservation of the natural environment. There are some really big and important programmes, such as the environmental stewardship fund, the countryside stewardship scheme and so on.
Given Natural England’s important role in administering and awarding grants, it is important that the Committee know whether the Government plan to change that significantly. The body was established by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was a response to the widespread Haskins review. The powers it received came from the amalgamation of parts of the Countryside Agency, English Nature, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Rural Development Service. Natural England is extremely important in protecting our countryside. Is anything planned that would in any way diminish its countryside protection and management role?
I have questions that I would be grateful if the Minister answered. First, why is Natural England in the schedule? Secondly, do we have some guarantee that its powers will not be diluted, that its funding will not be substantially reduced and that it will still be able to produce independent reports such as the excellent “State of the Natural Environment 2008”, which was widely acknowledged as an important benchmark for countryside policy development? Finally, given that the funding could be changed at any time, how does the Minister intend to maintain the organisation’s independence, especially as there might be concerns about challenging the Government’s policy on the environment and the countryside if the result could be a reduction in funding?

David Heath: The hon. Lady is doing exactly what she is required to do as an Opposition Member in questioning the Government’s intention in including Natural England in the schedule. However, it is a great pleasure to think that the reply I am going to give will satisfy her in every respect and that she has nothing to fear. The amendment, which I suspect is a probing one to clarify the situation, would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make an order modifying the funding arrangements of Natural England.
Natural England has powers in the founding legislation and other enactments to make charges for services that it provides and in relation to its licensing functions, subject in some cases to making an order under section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. It is included in schedule 4 to enable an ambiguity in existing legislation to be removed. That ambiguity arises because the existing charging powers are worded in a way that gives rise to doubts over their scope. In particular, the existing powers enable an order to be made providing for a charge for issuing licences, but it is not clear whether the powers allow for a charge to be made when an application is received for a licence that is subsequently withdrawn or refused. Natural England is therefore included in schedule 4 so that the Secretary of State can amend and clarify existing legislation and thereby make the scope for charging powers clearer—nothing to do with the legitimate concerns the hon. Lady raised. This simply enables the Secretary of State to correct an ambiguity in existing legislation. I hope that clarifies the Government’s intention, and that on that basis the hon. Lady can withdraw her amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for that response. If he is assuring the Committee that the proposed changes are concentrated on charging and licensing, I think we can be satisfied. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 10,in schedule 4, page21,line16, leave out ‘Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”).’.—(Mr Heath.)

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5  - Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices

David Heath: I beg to move amendment 11,in schedule 5, page21,line22, at end insert ‘Chief Coroner, Deputy Chief Coroners, Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner and Deputy Medical Advisers to the Chief Coroner.’.
The amendment deals with the office of chief coroner, and I say from the outset that I know this issue engages a lot of hon. Members, as well as many people outside the House. We need to give proper consideration in Committee to this serious matter.
The amendment will add the office of chief coroner to schedule 5, enabling the transfer of most of the office’s functions to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. I fully agree with hon. Members, Members of the other place and stakeholders about the need for urgent reform to the existing coroner service. I was one of those who argued strongly for that in the previous Parliament, and I was very frustrated by the delay in that reform. The amendment will allow us to deliver such a reform. We must address delays in the inquest process, remove the barriers that prevent inquests from being heard in the most convenient location for bereaved families, and ensure consistent training for and standards of service from coroners. The amendment allows for all such things to happen as quickly as possible.
I should clearly set out what the Government believe the debate’s terms are because, to be absolutely frank, there is a financial element. It is the view of the Ministry of Justice that we cannot afford to implement the office of chief coroner as such, and, therefore, we cannot reform the system without transferring the office’s functions and implementing key provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is imperative that the amendment be passed if there is to be significant, meaningful reform of the system.
As I have indicated, I am well aware of the strong feeling on this subject. The Government’s decision not to proceed with full implementation was not taken lightly. Establishing costs of £10.9 million and running costs of £6.6 million may not sound a great deal to some—however, it does to me—but against a backdrop of cost reductions of over 20% in the Ministry of Justice, new funding, which is what this would have to be, on top of existing budget commitments, cannot be found.
Concerns were expressed on Second Reading about the impact such changes would have on the independence of coroners. I refer hon. Members to the statement issued by the Government on 14 June, which confirmed that the Lord Chief Justice had approved the proposed transfer of statutory functions. If a function is judicial, Government will have no role in it. In practice, that will mean that the Lord Chief Justice’s functions include the power to direct coroners to conduct investigations and to make training regulations for coroners, including targeted training on specific areas of concern. The Lord Chancellor will take on non-judicial functions, such as maintaining a register of inquests lasting more than a year, and the power to designate medical practitioners for the purpose of performing post mortems. I hope hon. Members are reassured that the proposals will protect the judicial independence of coroners.
There are very few chief coroner functions that we do not propose to transfer, the main exception being section 40 of the 2009 Act, relating to appeals; that is because the costs of establishing and maintaining a bespoke appeal system are simply not justifiable. The existing systems of redress will remain, so that decisions can still be contested through judicial review or through application by, or under the authority of, the Attorney-General to the High Court. Complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner will continue to be made to the Office for Judicial Complaints, as would have been the case if a chief coroner were in place. Coroners will therefore continue to be accountable for their personal conduct.
Those avenues of redress are set out in the proposed charter for the coroner service, a draft of which we have just consulted on. The charter, which we intend to publish early next year, will set out for the first time the standards of service a bereaved family or other interested party can expect.

Susan Elan Jones: The Government appeared to think that they knew better than thousands of people across Wales regarding the Welsh fourth channel, S4C. On the issue we are discussing, do the Government believe that they know better than hundreds of thousands of supporters of the Royal British Legion?

David Heath: I hope that all those supporters—for whom I have a huge regard—understand exactly what the Government are proposing, and how we are improving the coronial system to deal specifically with the issues on which I and many other Members have campaigned for many years. We want to improve the coronial system and provide a better service for bereaved families of servicemen who have sadly lost their lives. This is not simply about military inquests; those of us who were engaged in the debates on the reform of the coronial system know that some important reforms need to be put in place. Very few of those are contingent on the post of chief coroner, and that is what we are examining in Committee today.

Valerie Vaz: The Minister mentioned that coroners will be accountable to someone. To whom?

David Heath: Coroners will be accountable in exactly the same way as they currently are. There is a process of redress, which I have just explained, regarding their personal conduct—personal conduct remains with the Office for Judicial Complaints—and they are responsible for the conduct of the actual inquest by means of either the judicial review system or the application by the Attorney-General to the High Court. They are judicial posts, however, and they were never intended to be accountable to a politician or to the chief coroner.
I turn to the supervisory role of the chief coroner under the previous legislation, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about that role. Concerns have been expressed about leadership and oversight of the coroner system. Many people have misunderstood the intention of the previous legislation regarding the extent of the chief coroner’s powers in those areas. Statutory powers to direct coroners are limited to conducting investigations where there is no body, and transferring investigations to another coroner. We propose to transfer those functions to the Lord Chief Justice. The chief coroner would have been able to effect change within the coronial system only through influence and persuasion, because there was no hierarchical structure in the system under the previous legislation.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the Minister not accept that much of the discussion about the role of the chief coroner centred on having an individual who is seen as leading a service and can drive through change in that role? Do the Government not accept that the chief coroner could have carried out that role?

David Heath: The Government are suggesting that that role can be carried out as effectively by the Lord Chief Justice at a lower cost to the Exchequer. As the hon. Lady knows, the Lord Chief Justice has widespread responsibilities and powers in the judicial system, and the coronial system is part of that wider family. He would take on those functions of the chief coroner, with whatever support he requires in that role. The important thing is the function, not the person. I have already mentioned the limited powers of direction that the previous legislation conferred.
There is another big issue, to which I think the hon. Member for City of Durham was referring: coronial policy, standards of service and the other administrative aspects of the coronial service. Concern was expressed about ensuring that the coronial system was equal to the task that it was set. Under the proposals, a new ministerial board will be tasked with advising on coronial policy, standards of service and the other administrative aspects of the coroner service. The board could, for example, review national statistics gathered from the coroner service to support an action plan for reform.
The quarterly publication of progress on inquests concerning service personnel killed in operations and exercises overseas provides a model of transparency. The board will be advised and supported by a bereaved organisations committee, which will be independently chaired and represented on the ministerial board itself. It will have a particular remit in monitoring the charter. That will provide the representatives of the bereaved with a direct line to Ministers.
The Government have listened to the concerns expressed in the other place and elsewhere, which is why we have amended our proposals to retain the office of chief coroner in statute, rather than pushing for outright abolition. That will allow Members here and in the other place to hold the Government to account on the proposed reforms.
The Government have also listened to Members of the other place and key stakeholders about the remit and composition of the new ministerial board and the bereaved organisations committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), has discussed the Government’s proposals with Members of both Houses and he is happy to continue that dialogue on the structure and remit of the ministerial board.
The amendment is a pragmatic and sensible solution to the need to reform in the current economic climate. I ask members of the Committee to consider what would happen if the amendment were not accepted: the office of chief coroner would remain on the statute book, but its functions would not be transferred. Without that transfer, it will not be possible to implement the main coroner provisions in the 2009 Act, leaving us with the worst possible outcome of little or no meaningful reform of the coroner system. That would be unacceptable to me, and I suspect from previous comments in Committee that it would be unacceptable to other Members, too. I therefore urge Members not to oppose the amendment today, but I welcome their views and will ensure that they are faithfully transmitted to the Ministry of Justice. However, the proposal deals with the reform and effectiveness of the coroner service, which is what we all want to see, without an excessive cost to the Ministry of Justice.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but—I am sure this is also the view of my hon. Friends—we have not been given the reassurance we may have expected. The issue is extremely difficult. I was in the House when we had many detailed discussions about the 2009 Act, and I am deeply concerned that the amendment will unravel substantial parts of it. Indeed, given the amount of cross-party agreement on that Act, I share the shock expressed by several organisations about the way the Government are looking at the whole coroner service.
I have several points to make and I apologise in advance for taking up the Committee’s time, but this is such a serious issue that we must examine it very carefully. A number of us find it quite extraordinary that the issue has come on to the agenda so soon after the 2009 Act was given Royal Assent, and before its main provisions have been implemented. We need an explanation from the Minister—one that goes beyond simply cost—as to why the Government are looking at the coronial service in this way.
As my hon. Friends have already pointed out, many organisations have written to members of the Committee and have been campaigning widely in the country about these proposals. There is huge concern and anxiety about what is being proposed and I should like some more details about the rather fragmented service that the Government will apparently create with the haphazard—that is the appropriate word—transfer of powers to different individuals and bodies. We have heard in detail from organisations that know better than any others what needs to happen to improve our coroner service and what is wrong with it at the moment. We have heard from Inquest, the British Medical Association, the Royal British Legion, Cardiac Risk in the Young, Victim Support and Mencap. Does the Minister feel he knows more than all of those organisations about the operation of the coronial system and what needs to happen to improve it? That is a legitimate question.
Those organisations seem to conclude that the framework that was approved by Parliament two years ago is still the best way forward. They point out that the 2009 Act was structured in a way that would help reduce the problems being experienced by those dealing with the coronial system. We need to understand that so that we can make a proper assessment of what the Government propose in the amendment. There was much debate before the 2009 Act and it was argued that
“the coroner’s system operates as a fragmented, non-professional assortment of individual coroners who operate with no compulsory training and little accountability. There are a growing number of coroners who adopt an efficient, modern approach to running inquests, but overall there is a ‘postcode lottery’ of service for bereaved families with good practice dependent on the approach of individual coroners.”
I do not think we accept that as being a suitable or appropriate style of behaviour for any service at the moment, and particularly not for one dealing with very sensitive issues and bereaved families. Delays of two or three years to the inquest process are not uncommon. That causes difficulties not only for bereaved people but for all those involved in the inquest process. Because of the huge delays, the opportunity to identify what went wrong at an early stage and perhaps use that information to prevent other deaths is missed, which is a major failing. Compounding that problem, the current system has no robust mechanism to monitor inquest findings or to take any follow-up action with the relevant public bodies. Indeed, that is an issue that comes up again and again in the comments made by the BMA and Inquest about what the Government propose in the amendment. An inquest will often have to take on board statutory bodies, such as the NHS, and do so in a quick and efficient manner. There is huge concern that the Government’s proposal will simply not allow the reform of the system that would enable inquests, where blame is attached to the NHS or other public bodies, to be dealt with quickly.
An excellent report by Mencap, “Death by Indifference”, documents the failings of the current inquest process, which lead to distress for families. We have seen such criticism across the board. A number of my constituents, and I am sure of other hon. Members, have found that that delay and the process add to, rather than ameliorate, their distress. There have been numerous reviews of the coroner service, such as those in 1936, 1965 and 2001. The most recent review by Tom Luce was instrumental in identifying the key problems and setting in train the campaign that led to the 2009 legislation. That review concluded that the coroner service was simply not fit for purpose. Among the major criticisms was the rather fragmented state of the service. My concern is that the Government’s proposal will take us back to that highly fragmented service, without the head of service having the ability or skills to drive through the change that is needed.
Interested organisations say that they want the 2009 legislation to be implemented; they oppose the Government’s plans, as we do; and they believe that the role of the chief coroner can be created at significantly lower cost than has been set out by the Minister. Will the Minister indicate whether discussions have been held with relevant charities and the organisations I have listed to see if a way forward can be found to satisfy all parties? I understand that at the moment those bodies do not accept the Government’s proposals as a satisfactory way forward. Given the widespread recognition of the need for a 21st-century coronial service, I believe they should not accept what the Government put forward in the amendment. It simply does not deliver on key aspects of the 2009 Act, in particular, having a cohesive service with an overview.
I appreciate that the Government have not sought to reinstate the coroner’s office into schedule 1. However, I do not think they should have introduced the service to schedule 5. That does not accord with the views expressed in the House of Lords. They had a very detailed discussion about the service and obviously voted with quite a substantial majority to remove it from schedule 1. In their debate, members in the other place emphasised the issue before us today. They pointed out that the fragmented and antiquated system that was in place before the 2009 Act was largely created by the Coroners Act 1887. I heard nothing from the Minister today that leads me to believe that we are getting a substantial updating of the service through the proposals.
The 2009 Act introduced reforms intended to give the chief coroner necessary oversight, but also responsibility for training, leadership of the coronial system and a place at the head of the appeals framework. I will come back to appeals later, but the Minister today made me sigh—I am sure Committee members heard me do so—when he said, “Well, the current arrangements will continue and people who are unhappy with the system can use judicial review.” That is not acceptable. I would very much like the Minister to reconsider the points he made about the appeals system, which I will mention later.
We know that the powers and responsibilities of the chief coroner under the 2009 Act were more extensive that the Minister outlined in moving the amendment. They would have had the power and responsibility to manage the coroners’ courts by allocating cases to deal with backlogs, delays or particularly complex cases. The Minister knows that a major criticism of the operation of the current system is about delays. A chief coroner would also have been able to put specific arrangements in place to cater for unexpectedly large numbers of deaths due to a major incident. Crucially, we need to know how that would be managed in the system if the Government’s proposals are passed.
We know that a major role of the chief coroner was to drive up standards in the system through training. We were awaiting guidance on how that could have been put in place with national standards of service being developed. We heard something about that in the Minister’s statement earlier, but I would certainly like to hear more about how training will be implemented and who will be responsible for ensuring that it happens and is of the necessary quality. The chief coroner would have been able to work with the Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice to make regulations and rules overhauling practice and procedures at inquests and setting how a role could be extended, for example. They would also be able to deal with appeals against coroners’ decisions, including on issues such as whether to investigate a death and any findings as to the cause of death.
The new appeals system, overseen by the chief coroner, would have offered families a route to resolve poor decision-making by coroners and spared them the challenge and expense of going through judicial review. Families and organisations feel strongly about that. Why have all the points made about the difficulty of using judicial review been largely ignored by the Government, because that appears to be the case?
The chief coroner also wanted powers to develop and operate an effective scheme for ensuring that recommendations about public safety and related warnings emerging from coroners’ investigations would be brought to the attention of those responsible for creating the relevant risks. Again, the Minister may need to tell us where that whole set of responsibilities will end up in the current system, should his proposals go through.
Last but not least—this is really important for improving the service—the chief coroner had powers and responsibilities regarding monitoring the performance of the coronial system, including through the provision of an annual report to the Lord Chancellor addressing, among other things, levels of consistency between coroner areas, the number of investigations that have been ongoing for more than a year, the identification of specific resource issues and any other matters that the chief coroner wishes to bring to public attention. The annual report would have been published and laid before Parliament, offering an opportunity for further scrutiny and debate. Again, we need an absolute assurance from the Minister about who will put that report together, and who will be responsible for ensuring that its contents are listened to and—this is crucial—acted on.
Many issues arise from the amendment. We have already dealt with the number of organisations that have concerns about the proposal, but I want briefly to summarise the main issues. The chief concern, which we have dealt with before, is the lack of independence in the proposals for dealing with the transfer of functions. As the Minister has informed us and as we know from elsewhere, it is proposed that most of the functions will transfer to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice. As I said, we have not had a sufficient explanation from the Minister as to whether that really honours the spirit of the 2009 Act, or whether the degree of impartiality the chief coroner’s office was envisaged to have will be maintained.
We had several reports before the 2009 Act, including huge reports by Inquest such as “How the Inquest System Fails Bereaved People”. I will not detain the Committee by going through the many reports that pointed out that what was really important in order to satisfy public anxiety and bereaved families’ anxiety was that the system be independent from Government and able to hold them to account, and that it be able to respond to issues raised by bereaved families and organisations representing them. Reference was also made to the current lack of information for bereaved families about their rights, the frequent lack of understanding of religious or cultural practices and beliefs, and the huge variation in the quality and extent of post-mortems.
I am not clear from what the Minister said how the postcode lottery, which is a systemic failure of the current service, will be addressed. There is a growing body of evidence, which also underpinned the 2009 Act, that the system is failing the families of servicemen and women. The Royal British Legion has not welcomed the Government’s proposals, and the Government must seriously consider why their assurances are not being accepted by the Royal British Legion or many of the other bodies I have mentioned. Such bodies know better than anyone how the current system is failing the bereaved families of our servicemen and women. We need to unravel the system that the 2009 Act introduced very cautiously indeed.
I turn to the key questions that I want to put to the Minister. The 2009 Act put the bereaved and bereaved families at the heart of the process, but the current proposals do not appear to do so. Will the Minister comment on that? He is looking at me rather quizzically; however, some of the Government’s proposals deal with everyone who may come into contact with the coronial service, rather than specifically addressing the needs of bereaved families.
How will the coronial service be independent, and how will the driving force for change be created? How will the Government’s proposals lead to an increase in transparency and accountability? The Opposition, along with many organisations and families, question why the service is in the Bill at all, because it does not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. The Government’s proposals will not increase transparency and accountability, cut out duplication of activity or discontinue activities that are simply no longer needed, so why are they in the Bill at all? There are strong arguments in support of the opposite case. Under the 2009 Act, the role of the chief coroner was to bring transparency, accountability, judicial oversight and national leadership, and to prevent duplication.
The many people campaigning against the amendment conclude that it must be a question of cost, and cost only. The Minister went some way towards admitting that this morning. A number of people argue that it is false economy, because there will be huge costs to the public purse that have not been included in the Minister’s projections, never mind the human cost. It is important that we concentrate on the human cost as far as possible, but I will deal for a moment or two with the financial cost. The Minister’s figures do not include the huge cost of delayed or postponed hearings, repeat investigations and judicial reviews. If he is really suggesting that judicial reviews are the way forward for appeals, the huge cost of those must be included.
Many organisations have put serious points to the Minister regarding reducing office set-up costs, which are extraordinarily high. There is a strong case for reducing start-up costs and initial office sizes. It is also important that the Minister make it clear that it was not the intention of the 2009 Act to set up a largely administrative body. I am concerned by the Government’s comment that the Act did not include a need for an individual at the head of a service to spearhead reform, because that is not anyone else’s reading.
There is also huge disagreement about whether powers can simply be transferred to alternative bodies. As I said earlier, there is huge concern that we might end up with a system as fragmented as the current one. We need to be clear about which individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture and behaviour of coroners. From what the Minister has said, that does not seem to be anyone, and there is huge concern about that.
There is a whole set of concerns about the ministerial board. The widespread opinion is that the board cannot do the same job as the coroner’s office would have done, had the 2009 Act been implemented. The Minister said something this morning about trying to make the board more responsive. We welcome that, of course, and we would like the board to listen carefully to the experiences of those who are using the coronial service. Nevertheless, we do not know what powers the board will have to implement any changes that might come about from its listening exercise. We need much more information from the Government on how the board will operate, therefore, before we can agree that this might be a sensible change. We are not convinced at the moment.
All the organisations I have mentioned are critical of the draft charter, about which the Minister has told us a little more. There is huge and widespread consternation about the charter because we believe it will be monitored by the hard-pressed voluntary sector. I am not sure whether the voluntary sector considers having such a scrutiny role appropriate unless it can ensure that some changes occur as a result. We know that, in practice, charters often turn out to be rather toothless and do not give the protection people want from problems with the coroner service. That goes back to the point I made earlier: there is huge concern that the special place the 2009 Act gave to bereaved families will be lost in the new structures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who chairs the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, has written to me, and it is important that we address some of the group’s comments. It is concerned that the lack of leadership that will result from the Government’s proposals will mean that the locally based system, which has no national oversight, will continue. That will put at risk research into suicides. In particular, it will prevent lessons from quickly being learnt about what can lead to a huge rise in suicide rates—my hon. Friend has some experience of this issue—and the level of consistency between different coroners will not be improved by the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the all-party group has carried out a substantial review of those proposals, and I urge the Minister to look at the points it makes. In particular, it is concerned about the lack of consideration that will be given to ongoing and relevant research.
I want to return to the conversations the Minister has had with the many organisations that are concerned about the amendment. It would appear to the Opposition that they have put forward a sensible proposal to the Government. They describe it as “a pragmatic way forward” and wonder why the Government have not decided to concur with them in their new approach. They say that the office of the coroner can be set up with much lower costs. We heard nothing from the Minister earlier about how the costs of the office could be reduced substantially. They also say that the process that was implemented under the 2009 Act could be elongated so that costs would not be borne so quickly in the next few years. Again, we heard nothing from the Minister about why that would not be possible. Thirdly, they suggest that the appeals process could be delayed: instead of simply abolishing the appeals process that was due to be introduced under the 2009 Act, it could be implemented at a later date.
That seems to be a very sensible set of suggestions. The Minister needs to explain why the Government have decided to ignore completely the views of many organisations that deal with the sensitive issues around the operation of the coronial service and their proposals that would have delayed the implementation of the 2009 Act and seriously reduced the costs. We might have been able to get some consensus on that. I conclude my comments there for the moment as I know that other Members want to speak on this, but a significant set of points and challenges have been put before the Minister.

Lisa Nandy: I want to add my voice to those of the many organisations that have spoken about this matter and of my hon. Friend. They believe it is a mistake to abandon the reforms. They were an important and clearly significant step forward and—in the view of Inquest and the Royal British Legion, which my hon. Friend mentioned—were essential, not just to bereaved families, but to every one of us. I received testimony from those expert organisations and I have a huge amount of respect for them. Like many other members of the Committee, I have also received e-mails from bereaved families who have gone through this process, families for whom the system did not work. Their testimony is heartbreaking. It bears out the view of the last independent reviewer of the system that the system is not fit for purpose. It may work for some people but it simply does not work for far too many.
I was particularly struck by those e-mails, one of which related to the death of a child. As the Committee knows, I have an interest in issues relating to children, and although this is not my particular expertise, I was made aware of just how difficult it is when a child dies and how important this process is to families.
After reading into the subject and learning more about it, it became clear that child deaths require rigorous standards and strong national leadership, and I am concerned that the Bill breaks something up that would have been able to provide that. Although I welcome Ministers’ assurances about the creation of a ministerial board, I have worked with several ministerial boards in my time and I know that, by their nature, they are unable to do as thorough a job as the reforms propose. Ministers are extremely busy, so ministerial boards meet infrequently and can only devote a certain amount of time, energy and attention to something that frankly deserves more.
The 2009 Act, as we have heard from many expert organisations and my hon. Friend, was about fundamental, co-ordinated reform. It was not only about the office of chief coroner; it was about the office of chief coroner as part of a tightly knit system, rather than a piecemeal one. The frustration of Inquest and other organisations which have lobbied us about this matter is so clear because that Act was fought very hard for and this was such a significant step. Their frustration is borne out of the fact that the system is now being fragmented and broken up even though alternative proposals are on the table. We have all received a lengthy set of proposals from those organisations, proposing an elongated time scale for implementation and a full review of the costs.
As with many other bodies that we have discussed in Committee over the past weeks, the real concern is that the changes are happening so quickly. It took so long to put this framework together and to devise something that would really work and deliver a service that was of the standard that families who are bereaved expect from us, but it has taken such a short time to break that up and destroy it. That is the concern, and that is why such organisations as Inquest and the Royal British Legion are asking Ministers, as I am, to think again.
I am particularly concerned about what will happen now that the appeals system is not going ahead. When I worked in the voluntary sector, I was involved with taking judicial reviews on behalf of families. The circumstances were different but judicial review is a very lengthy process. When dealing with bereaved families, adding to the amount of time that it takes for them to get a proper answer and proper redress is simply not appropriate—nor is it ethical, frankly, to force families through a process that takes them that long to get closure. Furthermore, for too many families—the statistics bear this out—no redress at all is provided. Currently, we only see around 25 judicial reviews a year, even though thousands of cases come before us. This approach cannot be right.
I appreciate that Ministers have been given a very strong imperative—to cut costs and abolish public bodies—but this is simply not the right target for them, nor is it the right thing to do. I urge Ministers to listen to such organisations as Inquest and the Royal British Legion, and to take the provisions out of the Bill and discuss these matters further. They should really consider the proposals that are on the table, because how people are treated at such a difficult period matters to them, not only at that time, but for the rest of their lives. It matters, too, as part of a wider system that is so important to all of us. I urge Ministers to think again.

Jonathan Ashworth: It is a tremendous pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I rise with some trepidation. I know that many members of the Committee are more familiar with judicial matters than I am, and I am very aware that the Deputy Leader of the House spoke for his party on justice issues, and was also very familiar with the 2009 Act as it went through Parliament. I am told that there was cross-party support—I do not know whether that extended to the Liberal Benches—for the establishment of the office of chief coroner.
I wanted to speak on this amendment because I have received a considerable number of representations on this issue from the British Legion and people who supported its campaign. I want to say at the outset that I wholeheartedly support the British Legion and what it is trying to achieve. The previous system, in which there were inadequate arrangements for dealing with service personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, was simply not acceptable, and I entirely support the British Legion’s campaign. I want to focus, however, on the leadership role that was envisaged for the coronial service, and the framework that would have been put in place. I would like to raise a few concerns, which I hope the Minister can respond to.
I understand the broader point that the Minister has made about functions being transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, but there are deep worries that that will result in a fragmented service, as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Wigan have just outlined. As I understand it, the chief coroner’s office would have had the responsibility to drive up standards, issue guidance, set national standards of performance and report annually to the Lord Chancellor. Functions will be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, but some of those responsibilities will not be transferred. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the House, but I am coming at it from this angle. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with the demographics of the city of Leicester. If they are not, they are more than welcome to come with me to Leicester, as long as they tell my constituents what a good MP I am and do not campaign for my opponents.

Charlie Elphicke: Speaking from personal experience, I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s city for a by-election in past times—not the by-election in which he was elected—and I have to say that it is a particularly fine city and a very pleasurable place to knock on doors. Sadly, not many people there were as supportive of my party as I would have liked.

Jonathan Ashworth: I would be delighted to visit Dover at some point in the future and knock on doors for my party there. The serious point is that I represent a city and a constituency that is rich in its diversity. Families have come to Leicester over many years from across the globe, from places such as India—from Gujarat and Punjab, mainly, but also from elsewhere in India—Malawi, Uganda, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Turkey and, in more recent years, from Afghanistan and eastern Europe. We are tremendously diverse, and we are proud of that. My city, and my constituency in particular, is graced by numerous mosques, Hindu temples, a Jain temple, gurdwaras, synagogues and many fine churches. We are a city of many faiths, and we are proud of that.
Being a city of many faiths brings with it many responsibilities, however. In particular, we have responsibilities for how we deal with the deceased, which sometimes differs from faith to faith. Members will appreciate that Muslim communities, for example, require burial to take place as soon as possible, and that particular practices for handling the body ought to be observed. Other communities require cremation to take place as soon as possible.
It should be said that in Leicester our coronial service is very good indeed. Our hospitals are good at dealing with such issues. We have many years of experience, and a great deal of understanding and respect has built up between the different communities about how such issues are dealt with. When I talk to groups—the Muslim Burial Council of Leicestershire is based in my constituency—they are very welcoming of how we deal with such issues in Leicester, but they express concerns about how burial, cremation and so on are dealt with in other parts of the country. They feel that such issues vary from district to district. Pushing for that universal level of service is therefore something that would be appropriate for the chief coroner’s office to do. Was it not envisaged that the chief coroner’s office would lead in issuing guidance and disseminating best practice on how to deal with various faith groups and their burial needs? Where will that type of function now fall?
In a written ministerial statement in June, the Lord Chancellor said:
“As the functions to be transferred are limited, and the Office of Chief Coroner not filled, neither the judge nor any other individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 66WS.]
So who will be responsible? I appreciate that the Minister has mentioned the ministerial board, which will be supported by a bereaved organisations committee, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has said, Ministers are busy people, and I am not sure how often the board is envisaged to meet. I know that Ministers sit on many Committees. I have worked for Ministers and I know how busy their private offices can get. I am not making a partisan point, but to what extent will the ministerial board realistically be able to deal with issues and take them up—obviously not day to day, but throughout the year—in the way that a staffed chief coroner’s office could?
I have an example of another issue that needs to be raised. Faith groups, and, to be fair, also people of no faith, sometimes have an objection to invasive autopsies. Research, which happens to be from the university of Leicester, is being done on imaging techniques that could replace invasive autopsies. That is a good example of something a chief coroner’s office could look at, to see whether such techniques could replace invasive autopsies and be rolled out across the whole coronial service. That is what groups in my constituency are arguing for, and it is the sort of issue that a chief coroner’s office could examine and pursue. I am not sure whether the ministerial board, meeting three or four times a year or whatever, would have the time to do that. I will be happy to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
I understand that the ministerial board will be supported by a bereaved organisations committee. Will faith groups be represented on that committee or on the ministerial board?
There is a broader argument about costs, and I concede that the costs outlined by Ministers do seem stark: start-up costs are £10.9 million, and running costs are £6.5 million. Of the start-up costs, £4 million is for IT and £2.5 million for recruitment, publications, additional coroners and transition costs. It must be said, however, that there is a great body of people out there who think that those costs are not credible. I have worked in government and I am not sure whether they are credible. There must be a better way of funding the scheme. The Paymaster General is fond of boasting that he has managed to negotiate better deals on Government procurement. Perhaps the Justice Secretary should let the Paymaster General loose on this deal, because there must be a better way of funding it.
I reiterate what my hon. Friends have said: are there not concerns that, because of the system that is being put in place, the number of judicial reviews will actually end up costing more? The British Legion has put forward a set of proposals for implementing the reforms much more cheaply. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that. I notice from yesterday’s Hansard that the Secretary of State for Defence said that he had some sympathy for the proposals, although he did go on to dismiss my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who raised the issue, by saying that they would cost too much. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that, too.
This is a serious and delicate issue that affects people in all kinds of ways. I mentioned how it affects people from faith groups in my constituency. It is also perhaps worth reiterating what the director of the British Legion said on hearing about the proposal:
“We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families… The Legion campaigned long and hard as part of its campaign to honour the Military Covenant for reforms to the inquest process—to guarantee bereaved Service families a modern, thorough and transparent investigation. The Chief Coroner’s Office and role are absolutely central to this.”
I agree with the British Legion, and I ask the Minister to reflect on its remarks and withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of what, I repeat, is an extremely serious issue, and one that we have to get right.
Before I get to the serious business, I must say that I have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Leicester. I learned of my appointment to my present post while I was there. Rather disconcertingly, I was at the ground of Leicester Tigers, who had inexplicably just beaten Bath in the play-offs of the rugby premiership, and was surrounded by Tigers fans roaring their support for their team when I received a call from the Prime Minister, which was difficult to hear in the circumstances. A little bit of history, my personal history, took place in Leicester South.
Let us move on to more serious matters. The essence of the issue is not the role of the chief coroner, which we are discussing today, but the package of reforms. For many years, many of us have argued for reforms to get the coronial system working better—for bereaved families and for people involved with the system—and to make the system more coherent and comprehensive across the country. Key to that are the changes to working practice, standards of service, advice on training and the coherence of the system. We must get those in place, which is why I, among many others, was so impatient when, year after year following the review of the coronial service, we were waiting for the legislation. The legislation never happened and continued to never happen—then eventually, in 2009, we got the Bill. I maintain that it is the reforms to the coronial system that are important, not the office of chief coroner.
What are we actually discussing? We are discussing not the destruction of the raft of proposals nor a reversal of Government policy, but whether, under the current proposals, the role of the chief coroner is best accomplished by the Lord Chief Justice, assisted by a High Court judge with delegated powers for that purpose, or by a High Court judge with powers given under the legislation for that purpose. That is the distinction. It is a narrow distinction, but one with a cost. The cost of setting up a self-standing body for the administrative functions, rather than using the existing offices of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, is considerable.
The hon. Member for Leicester South asked about the costs. He raised an eyebrow at the itemised costs, and I can exclusively reveal to him that I did, too. They were worked out not by the present Government but by the previous Government in their impact assessment of the 2009 Act. If the costs are invalid now, they were invalid then. I trust the Ministry of Justice has made a sensible assessment of the costs of implementing a proposal that it wants to work effectively.

Lisa Nandy: Nobody is arguing that no costs are involved in setting up an office of the chief coroner; the point, made by several Opposition Members, is that costs are involved in not setting up that office. A number of us are concerned about the great disparity between what the Government are saying—whichever Government worked out those costs—and what Inquest and the Royal British Legion are saying. That is why we are asking for this provision to be taken out—to give some time to think again and see whether we can reach some form of resolution.

David Heath: I hope we can reach a resolution, and the hon. Lady is making a perfectly valid point. However, I should point out that the idea that there has been no discussion with the organisations involved is so far from the truth as to be unreasonable. What the Committee has before it today is the result of continuing discussion and dialogue with those bodies, and we have taken on board a lot of suggestions that arose from those discussions. I accept that they are still not satisfied with the outcome, but those discussions will continue. The door is not closed, and I know that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will want to continue to discuss the details of the proposal and whether it can be improved, within the cost context we are discussing. That is the point we cannot get away from as a Government: there is a very substantial cost here, and it is not clear how that can be met, except by trying to provide the best possible outcome within the cost framework.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I wish to press the Minister on the issue of cost. We accept that the initial costings were made according to what is desirable in setting up the chief coroner’s office, rather than—in these very straitened times—what is absolutely essential. We would have liked a detailed breakdown of the limited costs that are essential in the setting up the coroner’s office, and it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to set that out at some stage.

David Heath: I will certainly do what I can, with colleagues from the relevant Departments, to provide as much information as possible. A lot of these costs have already been put before the House, with a detailed breakdown in the existing proposals. What we must examine is whether there are any variations from that.
I will come back to the alternative option a little later, but first I need to address a number of points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham. She talked about the need for the bereaved to be at the centre of the process. That is absolutely the thrust of what is proposed. There is no difference. The hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned that there was all-party agreement on the direction of travel, and indeed there was. We were very clear that the coronial system needs radical reform—that is the basis upon which the previous legislation was founded. Part of that process is making sure that the voice of the bereaved is heard very clearly. That is why the proposed set-up—the ministerial board, advised by the committee of organisations for the bereaved—is absolutely crucial. It will act as a sounding board for precisely those concerns about the way the bereaved have so far been treated as part of the process. Those are concerns we all share.
The hon. Member for City of Durham also mentioned independence. There could be no more independent person in the country than the Lord Chief Justice. That been demonstrated time and again—by the present post-holder and his predecessors—and I am not sure I can find a better example. The Lord Chief Justice has both the status and the necessary level of judicial independence to ensure that their voice is heard. That, in my view, is crucial to the process. Judicial independence is absolutely guaranteed by what is now proposed; it is arguable that it was not under the original proposals. As a result of listening to what was said in the other place, we have come back with a measure that retains a clear strand of independence, and that should be recognised.
The hon. Lady talked about reports learning lessons, and this is a key area in which we have to ensure best practice. At the moment—and this will continue—all reports from a coroner are sent to the Lord Chancellor. That will still happen; moreover, it will be enshrined in legislation and order; it will be published and sent to all those who need to know about those reports. That includes the National Offender Management Service, the prisons and probation ombudsman, the ministerial council and the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody. That process is clearly there.
If the hon. Lady is saying that under the previous proposals the chief coroner would have had an enforcement role, that was not the case. It was not in legislation and will not be under the present arrangements. That was not part of the role of the chief coroner. Some people assumed that there would be a supervisory role for the chief coroner that simply never existed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am listening carefully to the Minister. What assurances can he give that the process will be timely? Under current legislation, it was envisaged that reports would be undertaken speedily and in a way that could influence practice quickly enough to have an effect on similar deaths.

David Heath: I do not think I am being presumptuous, as regards the Department, in saying that I am sure that will be the case. That is a key aspect of the reform process now under way. We have already talked about the leadership role, which will be shared by the Lord Chief Justice, in terms of the judicial aspects of the coronial system, and the ministerial board. I heard what the hon. Member for Wigan said about ministerial boards, and I have some sneaking sympathy with her suggestion that there might be an overload on ministerial time. However, there cannot be a better level of responsibility if one wants things done. If one wants to drive through changes in practice, there is executive power in place. That is the importance of the ministerial board, provided it gets the right advice in a timely way. That is what I hope will be achieved by the support systems that are being put in place by the bereaved organisations committee, which I am sure will not sit around twiddling its thumbs waiting for something to happen. It will have a very active voice.
We do not yet have the composition of the committee, which partly answers the hon. Member for Leicester South. There is no reason why that committee should not include faith groups. Irrespective of whether it does, one of its functions is to report on the charter, and that is particularly sensitive to the different needs of faith groups in dealing with deceased people. That function is inherent in what it does. The chair of the bereaved organisations committee will be independent and a strong advocate for the sort of reforms that we all want to see.
The issue of appeals involves a financial decision. Setting up a bespoke appeals process is an expensive option—one that Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have decided cannot be justified in present circumstances. Not having the appeals system will not increase the number of judicial reviews, which will remain reasonably constant. One factor that might be involved is that improved information will be available to “users” of the inquest system. They will have better information on how to seek redress if they feel that it is appropriate to do so, which is an improvement on the present system. We do not expect an increase in the number of judicial reviews as a result of not introducing a new level of appeal.
Comments have been made about the charter. It is a draft, which is under consideration, and we are open to the views of organisations that have an interest. The Department will listen to any criticism of the charter. It must be borne in mind that it refers to the current coroners system, and it will have to be revised entirely as we drive through the reforms to the coroners system to make it better. The charter relates to what can be achieved under the current arrangements, rather than to what we hope will be a very much improved system under future arrangements.
I have not yet addressed the question of whether there is a low-cost alternative. I reject the idea—I invite the Committee to do likewise—that we can deal with the economic situation by simply delaying reforms. I do not want these reforms delayed any further. Delays in, and malfunctioning of, the coronial system causes damage to families and individuals, which we cannot allow to persist, so we need to drive the reforms forward. Extending the time period would not be a satisfactory outcome. We need to look at how we can achieve the reforms in the shortest possible time scale with the least cost, because doing so is in all of our interests. Of course, the money that is saved goes into ensuring that the system is more effective. That supports the Government’s view that for the reforms to be timely and effective, the role of the chief coroner—which we do not propose to abolish—should be taken on by the Lord Chief Justice, assisted by a High Court judge.
The support of the ministerial board, with the assistance of the bereaved organisations committee, and the powerful independent chairman will act as a sounding board for the concerns that have been expressed. Consideration is taking place—perhaps I might mention this in light of the amendment made to the Armed Forces Bill last night in another place—of how the performance of the coroners system, in respect of not only military inquests but all inquests, can be properly reported to Parliament, so that we have a much clearer handle on what is going on.
The system consists of a number of disparate individuals; coroners for each county are separate judicial figures, and nothing in this world will dragoon them all into the same pot, but they have a very important role to play that needs to be undertaken with a great deal of care, consideration and expertise. Our proposals allow the necessary reforms to be driven through. I repeat: if the Committee votes against the amendment, it is effectively voting not to have the raft of reforms. I appreciate that there are arguments, which I do not diminish, to be had outside and within the House about whether what is proposed is the best solution, but the idea that one can achieve that best solution by not accepting the amendment, which allows the chief coroner’s role to be substantive, albeit carried out by the Lord Chief Justice, would lead to a retrograde step. I urge the Committee to reject that view and support the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Thank you, Mr Amess, for allowing such extensive debate on this very serious issue. I find it astonishing that not one Government Member other than the Minister sought to speak on the subject. We will not push the amendment to a Division today, not because we are in any way convinced by what he said, or because we find his remarks reassuring, but because I would like to give him another chance to speak to all the organisations that are concerned about the proposals, as well as to some of the individuals who have raised concerns with us. We will see what comes back on Report, and if we are not satisfied then with the progress that the Government have made, we will deal with that then.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said. Dialogue will, of course, continue—not with me, but more effectively with Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, because that is the key area. I give her my assurance that my colleagues in that Department will be happy to continue the dialogue with all the people who are interested in and concerned about this area, so that we can find the best possible solution and present it to the House.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Amendment made: 12,in schedule 5, page21,line23, leave out ‘Civil Justice Council.’.—(Mr Heath.)

Charlie Elphicke: I beg to move amendment 36,in schedule 5, page21,line24, at end insert ‘Dover Harbour Board’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37,in schedule 5, page22,line11, at end add—
‘2 Sections 22(1) and 22(2)(a) do not apply to an order under section 5 which provides for the functions of the Dover Harbour Board to be transferred to another person.’.

Charlie Elphicke: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Amess.
Amendment 37 is largely consequential on amendment 36, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, and for East Surrey. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who has responsibility for civil society. He has been a powerful champion and advocate of civil society, the big society and the extraordinarily far-reaching programme that the Prime Minister has set out for a new flowering that will enable decentralisation and localism, and let the whole big society—social enterprises, mutuals and charities—to play a larger role, so that it is not just the third sector but, as the Prime Minister likes to say, the first sector.
The Cabinet Office has been doing a fantastic job as an advocate in Government for this new way of thinking. Nevertheless, it does not always get its own way, so I have moved an amendment to smooth things along for the Dover harbour board, and to assist it in its positive dialogue with the Department for Transport. That is another great Department that is fixed in its view of the world. It is sometimes a little bit binary when one would hope it was hexadecimal. I tabled the amendments to further discussion on the future of the port of Dover, which is important to my constituency of Dover.
I should explain the background, and the mischief that the amendment seeks to address. There is currently a proposal to privatise the port of Dover under the Ports Acts 1991, which I am sure, Mr Amess, you recall in minute detail. That Act essentially enables trust ports to be privatised. It is a matter of major concern to my constituents. There is a voluntary privatisation mechanism in section 9 of that Act, and a compulsory privatisation mechanism in section 10. The port of Dover, or the Dover harbour board, as it is officially known, has put it to the Department for Transport that it would like to privatise itself under section 9 of the Ports Act so that it can find someone to buy it, whereupon it will become a private company, like so many ports in this country that have taken that route.
The Ports Act 1991 was a great Act of its time. It was fine for two decades ago, but the country has moved on. This old, stale debate about nationalised or privatised, or nationally owned assets or privately owned assets—the binary world of 20 years ago—has become more nuanced in the post-bureaucratic age, the age of the information revolution. That is because there is a greater sense of knowledge—knowledge that is not just locked up in London in the civil service or big business, but available to everyone across the nation. It could be summed up as “We know as much as they do.”

Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee why Dover was not privatised following the 1991 Act? Were there particular arguments in respect of Dover or other ports in that strategically important part of the UK?

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is an important and interesting question. In the early 1990s, there was a proposal to privatise Dover under the Ports Act process. My predecessor, David Shaw, fought against the proposal, and against a Minister who was very determined to privatise the port of Dover. There was then a reshuffle, and as is the way of these things, the new Minister took a slightly different, more nuanced approach, so the issue was put to one side.
There was a change of Government in 1997, as most of us will recall. At that point, the proposal was put on ice. Why did it pop up again under the previous Government—a Labour Government who were not in favour of privatisation? Under a so-called “modernising trust ports” programme, they asked all trust ports in the UK to review their status. Each trust port did so and came forward with proposals. The idea was to improve their governance. Dover, however—a harbour port that is unique in many ways—decided to put forward a proposal not to improve its governance, but to privatise itself. It concluded that, under the “modernising trust ports” review, it wanted to sell itself off under section 9, and that was what it put to the Government.
The previous Government could have killed the situation off at that point. Unfortunately, the timing was bad, at least for the people of Dover, because this happened immediately after the financial crisis, and suddenly the previous Government were in a very difficult financial position. I will not go into the issue of blame or how the situation came about, as that would not be helpful, and is not relevant to this discussion. Given the financial crisis, the previous Government put together a report called the “car boot sale”—officially known as the operational efficiency report—and put Dover into it, to sell off a number of assets to plug a hole and give confidence to the markets, so that we would be able to borrow. There was a coalescence of timing: on the one hand, there was a port that suddenly wanted to sell itself off, and on the other, the Government were in need of rapid cash, and that led to a situation in which a voluntary privatisation process was suddenly under way.
All that took place immediately before the general election. A key plank of my personal manifesto to the people of Dover was that I did not want to see a privatisation like this go ahead, as it was manifestly not in the interests of the community. The idea had been tested by my party at the previous general election, and the voters gave a clear response, showing what they thought about selling off the port of Dover. I therefore took the position that there would be a better way.
Having won the election, I put forward an alternative proposal, and I moved the amendment to ensure that there is greater consideration, so that rather than having a vanilla privatisation process, there can be reform under the Public Bodies Bill. The process can then take place under the reform mechanism, so that instead of the old-fashioned, 1980s approach of “just sell it off if it’s not bolted down—and possibly even if it is”—an approach that the previous Government continued—we can adopt a more nuanced approach, including the ideas of social enterprise and mutuality that Prime Minster has been advancing.

Stephen Mosley: Can my hon. Friend clarify something for me? I know that the schedule gives the Minister power to modify or transfer functions, but that is not compulsory, is it? The decision is still in the Minster’s hands; the schedule simply enables what my hon. Friend is proposing to occur.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly right, and his point is brilliantly made.The Bill sits across the political landscape rather like a superstructure. It does not change the landscape at all. If the amendment were accepted, it would be an additional tool in the tool bag of the Secretary of State for Transport. It would not in any way prevent him from proceeding under the Ports Act 1991, if that was what he wanted to do, and if that was the thrust of policy in his Department, irrespective of the ambit of the wider Government policy and vision for social enterprises, mutuals, the big society and community engagement. It would not in any way detract from the Secretary of State’s powers under the Ports Act 1991.
I hope that if the Minster accepts the amendment, it would send a positive signal to the Department for Transport that it should think a little harder and look at the possibilities for ensuring greater community engagement with the port. Most Members here do not have ports in their constituencies, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, the Whip, who is not permitted to speak in this Committee. However, I assure the Committee that all Members who have ports in their constituency wrestle with this issue: on the one hand, a port is a business, but on the other, it is also a social beast, to which communities attach. Communities have concern for and an affinity with their port, and desire a level of engagement. A port is a key asset. It dominates the whole coastline of a coastal town. People engage with it very readily, want a say about it, and want it to be part of the community.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend has talked about attachment, and the community support for the proposal. Could he give the Committee some sense of the consultation process that he has been through, and of the support in the community for this specific proposal?

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Let me turn to that key question: how does the community of Dover and Deal, which I represent, feel about the proposal? As a Member of Parliament in a marginal seat who believes in engaging widely with constituents, I have been in dialogue with them, and have put the proposal to them. Following public meetings, we had a referendum on the issue in Dover. It is not possible to have a district-wide referendum until the Localism Bill has passed through the House. However, reading my law books and dusty tomes, I discovered that there was a provision in the Local Government Act 1974 for a parish poll. I discovered that while it was intended for villages with about 500 people and a dog and maybe a horse—

Sam Gyimah: And a cat.

Charlie Elphicke: Indeed; a cat, and a variety of other animals that cannot vote. I realised that the rules pertaining to parish councils also applied to town councils. One could offer a statutory referendum to a town with a properly constituted town council, which Dover has. The rules are slightly odd, as it is quite an old Act: voting can take place only between 4 o’clock in the afternoon and 9 o’clock at night, and there can be no postal or proxy votes. Despite that, turnout in the referendum was higher than at the previous district council elections. The result has been described by colleagues as North Korean: 98% of voters were in favour of what we call the people’s port—the community mutual social enterprise option—whereas 2% were against, and a small fraction spoiled their papers. The reason why it was North Korean rather than Saddam-Hussein Iraqi was that we did not get more than 100% of the vote.
The serious point is the strong, unanimous community endorsement. I received a number of angry e-mails from constituents in other villages and towns who could not vote, demanding to have a say. I had to explain that the referendum could only be in one town, and to have multiple referendums would cost a lot on their parish rates. Following a public meeting of about 500 people, the people of Dover were prepared to hold the referendum as part of the process. They understood that it would cost £15,000. They were up for that, because they felt it was such an important issue for the future of the town and the constituency as a whole. They wanted to have that say and send that message to the Government. That was classic, strong, powerful community engagement. They wanted to communicate, and to say to Government, “This is the way the community wants to go.” They did not want the port sold off to the French or whoever; they wanted it to be owned by the community—to have the community right to buy. They wanted the chance to own and operate their port.
When one thinks of the community right to buy, one thinks of the village shop, the post office or the pub. A port that is worth north of £200 million is a little more substantial. As a strong advocate of the big society, decentralisation and localism, I would argue there should be no difference in principle if a credible, sensibly funded proposal is put together to enable that to happen.

Richard Harrington: I commend my hon. Friend on the amendment, his general erudition, and the support for this project. Were Watford a port, which I have always argued it should be, I would do exactly the same. My hon. Friend is very fond of the word “nuance”. I have made a note to use it in future interventions and speeches, because I like the nuances of it. Does he perceive the social enterprise as being on the public or private side, if it were a binary choice? Having seen the proposal, it seems to me that significant amounts of private capital are involved. Would he accept that, whether it is a social enterprise or not, the entity providing the private capital needs exactly the same kind of return that it would get if the project were private?

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which gives me an opportunity to explain. First, let us assume that a person owns a house and has a mortgage, which most of our countrymen do. That is borrowing, but who owns the house—the person or the bank? Economically, it is clearly the bank, but in fact the person owns the house, and feels that it is theirs. They feel much more strongly engaged with it, Conservative Members would say, than a tenant would be. Home ownership is essential to their sense of control and engagement. It is up to that person what colour they paint their house, whether they do renovations, and how the garden looks. They end up with the attributes of ownership, and are not simply watching the house. If someone else owns the house, or the person sells the house, it is no longer anything to do with them—a point that goes to the heart of the community social enterprise proposal.
The community would be the owners of the port. They would not sit there having to watch it, as they would if remote directors—either appointed by the Department for Transport in London, or responsible to other people far away—were appointed. In either case, the community does not get a say. In this case, the community would, with the attribution of ownership.
My hon. Friend raised a point about returns. The essence of his argument was that the cost would be the same. As we both know, there is a big difference between the return demanded by an equity investor and that demanded by a debt investor. An equity investor will want up to 8% or 10% real, whereas a debt investor will want something closer to 2% real. That goes to the heart of why the ferry companies—the port users—are so enthusiastic about the scheme. A key aspect of it is that it would be funded by bonds put in the market in the City of London. That fundraising has effectively been agreed in principle, subject to the usual due diligence, to the tune of £200 million. There would be a very low rate of return, and if the facility has a low rate of return—or a very low cost rate for the investment in it—the cost that the facility needs to charge to its users or customers is lower, too.
That is another major issue for the community, because a whole load of ferry companies are deeply concerned about the price path that the harbour board wants to put in place. The board wants to increase prices by a third over the next three years, at a time when ferry companies are starting to recover and see trade and revenues stabilise after a difficult and painful downturn. If the price path and mooring fees rise by a third, the companies will be put under considerable financial pressure and strain, which will result in them having to look for savings, particularly through jobs. That directly concerns my electorate, because the ferry companies are responsible for about 5,000 local jobs. As a constituency MP, the challenge to which I am trying to rise is that of protecting the jobs and businesses of my electorate. I want to ensure that their costs are not increased, and that people are not put out of work unnecessarily. That can be achieved simply by using a different form of financing, building on the community mutual.

Hywel Williams: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to community ownership in terms of shops, pubs, and so on. I point him to an example in my constituency, the Galeri arts centre, which cost about £5 million to build. By European standards, at least, it is a first-class arts centre, built in a town of 10,000 people. The crux of the matter as far as Galeri is concerned—I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on this point—is its accountability to the local community. How does he see the development in Dover achieving that direct accountability to the community?

Charlie Elphicke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point. Accountability is a central part of this. In trying to put together a proposal that squares the circles, I have had to do my best to protect the competitive position of the port users, the ferry companies, which are in competition with Eurotunnel. Secondly, I have had to address my constituents’ deep concerns, patriotic as they are, about the idea of their port, as they see and feel it, being sold off overseas. That is a deeply felt, emotional position. Thirdly, I have had to ensure that there would be regeneration—a subject to which I will return in a moment.
I will now address the point raised by the hon. Member for Arfon on accountability. If a mutual, or any social enterprise, is to engage with the community and to work properly, the governance and accountability issue needs to be solved. The question is: what do we do? How do we work out the solution to that problem? First, there are the bond markets, which want to ensure that, as they would put it, the lunatics do not take over the asylum. It is always the fear of the money markets that, somehow, mad community groups will take over and wreck their investment. To my mind, that is not a real concern, but a generalised fear. I do not see it as a real concern because, back in the day, building societies were mutuals. Theoretically, the people who had money in building societies could impose boards of directors that might have behaved in wild and outlandish ways. Some investors, and the Government, are concerned that unqualified people will take over and do rash things.

Susan Elan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for local community ownership of the port of Dover. Does he acknowledge that in this country there have been many interesting methods of community ownership and housing ownership? Much earlier in the 20th century, well before I was born, the National Union of Mineworkers instigated a mortgage scheme in Wales so that colliers could buy their own home. There are many interesting examples from the co-operative tradition, which is one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman’s comments are so interesting.

Charlie Elphicke: Of course the trade union movement was, and is, a co-operative movement. From time to time, Government Members do not agree with the positions taken by the leaders of that movement. I wish those leaders would concentrate more—and more of their subscriptions—on helping their membership, rather than running around organising campaigns, but that is a political issue rather than the substance when it comes to trade unions and the important role that they can play.
The history of building societies does not lie in the financing houses that they have become. They built houses, one by one, on a mutual basis. Housing associations, like the housing association movement, are, in many cases, mutual and social enterprises. They are responsible for substantial amounts of money and investment. If they were private and listed, the biggest housing associations, such as Places for People, would be on the FTSE 100. One might think that mutuals could be taken over by people in communities who will do crazy things, but many mutuals are large and serious businesses, with serious corporate governance and serious accountability.
How, then, do we solve the accountability conundrum? The way to solve it would be to ensure that there is ownership while ensuring that, as with housing association financing, the business plan is effectively locked. There would be undertakings and an agreement between the port users and the port that financing and services would be provided in a particular manner that would ensure that the port has the funds to service the interest and make investments, as agreed under a framework agreement with the port users. In return, the port users would underwrite the revenues of the port, which would underwrite the interest on the bonds and would give the port a lower rate of interest and a higher credit rating. In essence, to use City-speak, the port would become a non-statutory contractually regulated utility. Effectively, the port would become like a water company.

Sam Gyimah: What assurance does my hon. Friend have that the financing for the community to take over the port, and the working capital, will be available? It is interesting to hear that he has obviously had extensive discussions, but what assurance does he have that that financing will actually be available when the time comes?

Charlie Elphicke: That is a very good question. How do we know that an indicative pledge will turn into a real and funded one? As my hon. Friend will know, having been to the City of London and spent time with the chief executive of the London stock exchange, the London stock exchange was excited about the idea of having bonds on its exchange and excited about the port of Dover—just as it was excited about the recent retail bond issue by Places for People—so that it can create a quoted market. Places for People’s retail bond issue went exceptionally well. In the same way, I think that the port of Dover would have no problems getting away bonds to raise the purchase price to buy it off the Government, for the simple reason that we have safe, strong revenues and a secure return. That would enable that issue to take place, and I would expect it to be underwritten by the financial advisers. They assure me that that issue could be underwritten without difficulty.
I should add that this is not a fly-by-night proposal but a serious and substantial one. Substantial financial advisers in the City have been involved with it. The president of the People’s Port Trust is Sir Patrick Sheehy, who used to run British American Tobacco. Not everyone here will approve of tobacco companies quite as much as I do, as a smoker from time to time, but it is a substantial business and he is a substantial businessman who brings immense credibility. Likewise, Algy Cluff, who opened up the North sea to oil exploration, is a director. Serious and substantial people who live locally are directors of the People’s Port Trust.
The idea is that the trust is a mutual, and anyone can join for £10. The members of that mutual vote for half the board, and half the board is made up of stakeholders, local councillors, myself—or my successor; the Member of Parliament for Dover at the time—the chamber of commerce and a say for the port users. That is how that side is organised. The proposal is that one third of the directors of the operational port company will be appointed by the People’s Port Trust. One third of the directors will be appointed by port users, so that they have a say in the boardroom, and the other third would be the management of the port.
We would never get a situation where the community would be able suddenly to do wild and wacky things, because they would never have a majority for it. They would always be outvoted by the port users or the management. We would never get a situation where the port users would try to skew the business plan to suit their interests, because the management and the community would prevent that. In that way, by having everyone in the boardroom working together positively in a partnership for the improvement of the port, we would have sound, secure financing. Everyone would have a say, everyone would be involved and the community would retain overall ownership. I hope that that would give the community a bounce of confidence, because the one thing that Dover needs, as a town with a lot of deprivation, is more confidence. A bounce of confidence would have powerful and important economic effects, and we all understand that confidence is key to driving the economy forward.
Returning to regeneration, which is the third leg that I mentioned earlier, the business plan will put £50 million aside for the regeneration of the Dover seafront. Why does that matter? We have a lovely seafront. Half of it is what is called the eastern docks, which are operational in nature, with ferries going in and out majestically in the shadow of the white cliffs. The western side, however, was decimated 60 years ago in the war. It was very beautiful but it has never quite been rebuilt, so it is all a bit of a muddle. It is a cross between spaghetti junction, with roads going round lifted helter-skelter in the air, and buildings that are half falling down, isolated and island-like.
Having that regeneration fund of £50 million would kick-start the regeneration of the western side. One might ask why that has not been done before. Why has the harbour board over the past 60 years not done something to improve the western docks area? The reason is two-fold. First, it was not its core interest. It is interested in pushing ferries in and out, not in what the community is concerned about, which is the regeneration of the seafront. Secondly, it would find it difficult to raise the funds to do so, because—we are told—a port’s borrowing is scored under the public sector borrowing requirement, because all the directors are appointed by the Government. That means that the port theoretically cannot borrow, because it is an emanation of the state and therefore it scores as public borrowing. The other problem is that as an emanation of the state it is also hidebound by EU procurement rules. The advantage of having a community mutual, as opposed to a current trust board, is that there are no EU procurement issues or PSBR borrowing restrictions; investment is then possible. That is also the advantage of privatisation—the more fleet-of-foot side.
The difficulty of privatisation is the continued sense of alienation that has dogged Dover for the past 50-odd years. People feel very alienated from the port; they feel the harbour board does what it pleases and does not work in partnership with its port users or the community. A vanilla privatisation would not change that. That comes to the heart of the difficulty that faces me as a constituency MP: how to fire up that community engagement and regeneration; how to protect those jobs in the ferry industry and port users; and how to foster a greater sense of partnership between the businesses, between the port and the community. The proposal of the people’s port is the essence of the big society, social enterprise, mutuals and what can be done. It does not have to be on a small scale; the big society can be—dare I say it—big. One cannot get much bigger than £200 million.
I am aware that I am probably the first MP for about a century, since Joe Chamberlain was building Birmingham, to put together a serious piece of corporate financing in my own constituency off my own bat without any public funding, officials or assistance. I had to dream it up from the structuring I used to do as a tax lawyer before I arrived here. In my dialogues with Government I have been very open to a positive engagement of how the proposal we have put together and submitted to Government can be improved on, implemented and worked up. I have found it difficult at times to get the kind of engagement with the Department for Transport that is in line with the vision that the Prime Minister set out and inspired me to draw up the proposal in the first place.
The Minister responsible for civil society and other Ministers have been extremely generous, and I want to pay tribute to them. My purpose in the amendment is to send a stronger message to the Department for Transport than it has currently received—that the Prime Minister’s vision is a good one and that social enterprises, mutuals and the co-operative movement are great for our age. In the information age, they are something we can do more. I was personally inspired by the Minister’s remarks on “Newsnight” recently when he talked so movingly and powerfully about the desire to encourage communities to rise up and have a greater sense of their own destiny, to build with the tool set that we have in the modern age.
I recognise how difficult it is to make that kind of change, because there is an amazing amount of inertia in the Government machine. There always will be; any Government will find that. I am sure that former Ministers on the other side of the aisle will realise that as much as anyone on this side of the aisle. It can be difficult for new thinking and new ideas to take root to make change. It takes a long time, so I am aware that I am trying to beat down the door of the House with a reform that the Government are trying to prosecute. They are doing their very best, but it is inevitably hard because government is so large and, much like a supertanker, it is hard to turn around and move forward.
I hope that I have set out why the community mutual model is supported by 98% of the community, by more than 90% in the port worker trade unions in a ballot that they themselves had, and by the ferry companies, port users and wider local business interests. The whole community is united in that and in thinking that the harbour board has not taken the best approach. It is about not only privatisation, but something much wider. It is about a whole sense of engagement with the harbour board, how its members behave towards the community and about the perception that through privatisation members of the harbour board will net millions in share incentives based on the embedded value of the company and the business that they did not build up—it was built up over four centuries.
I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches has problems with share incentives for earned rewards, but not for rewards based on something that was there beforehand. That is why the 1990s’ privatisations sometimes went wrong; they allowed the embedded value of companies to go to executives and management, rather than give share incentives for management and executives to build up and be rewarded for the value they created. In that way, my community and I are strongly capitalist and say that this is not an opportunity to grab a load of loot and do a runner. It is wrong in principle for share incentives and investment rewards to be granted where that value has not been created or added to by the people in question. It is a very powerful view in my community that value has not been added to or created by the management, who would do very well out of the current privatisation proposal.
My community is cynical for the same reason and believes that the motivation behind the privatisation proposal and the enthusiasm of the harbour board for it might be that board members will substantially benefit from it, to the tune of between £15 million and £20 million, by my calculation. It is a substantial amount of money, which I look at and think, “I want that for the community”. I have to capture maximum value and benefit for my bosses—the electors who sent me here—and, in tabling the amendment, putting together this organisation and winning support across the community, that is what I am trying to do.
I hope that the Minister, who has put up with me for so long, as have other Members on the Committee, will tell me whether he is minded to accept the amendment with a view to encouraging our friends in the Department for Transport to go further towards embracing how things could be done.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on, first, breathing life into the Government Benches with his amendments and, secondly, speaking to the amendments so powerfully. We return to flattery again in the Committee, and it will be interesting to see whether the Minister succumbs to it and supports the amendments.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I disagree ever so slightly with him over whether the Government are making great progress on the big society agenda. I think we are on the fourth relaunch of the big society project and it does not seem to be exactly resonating with all members of the public, the voluntary sector or, given the length to which he seems to have to go to get them to listen to what the community wants, with all of Government. I wanted to spend a moment or two looking at why the Government object so strongly to a really sensible proposal from the hon. Gentleman.
It is clear from the Localism Bill that the Government wish to give communities more say and more control over what happens to their local areas. Here is a golden opportunity for Ministers to listen to what the local community want and to agree to it. Indeed, it puts a huge question mark over whether the Government mean anything by the Localism Bill if they are not prepared to listen to what the community wants in this case and to the excellent arguments that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward on its behalf.
Some years ago, and over a period of time, we may have considered a body of this nature to be either public or private, and we did not sufficiently consider whether there were other forms of ownership that might be more suitable for some of our public bodies. Since 2007-08, a lot more consideration has been given on a cross-party basis to alternative forms of delivery. That has considerably strengthened the consideration that is given in the House to co-operatives and other forms of mutual and employee-owned companies.
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that in 2008 we should have considered a whole set of options for bodies of this nature, in addition to that of privatisation. Indeed, across the board now, and in a variety of different circumstances, many organisations are looking at co-operatives and at becoming mutual in a way that they would not previously have done. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Opposition support co-operatives and mutuals. They are very much part of our foundations as a party and we feel we should have done more over time to promote co-operatives. Therefore there is much in the hon. Gentleman’s case that we would wish to support.
I also want to say something about how the hon. Member for Dover has engaged with the local community about what it wants, and I am sure that a number of us will look anew at the 1974 Act. It is not a piece of legislation that I am terribly familiar with, but by the end of the week I will be a lot more familiar with it. It seems a very useful piece of legislation in terms of going out there, having a type of referendum with the local community and gaining excellent evidence in support of the position that he puts forward. I agree that 98% is startling, but it indicates the huge strength of support in the local community for having ownership in some form of the port of Dover. Given the lengths to which he has gone to register that community support, I hope that the Minister will listen to what he has to say.
What is really powerful about this case is not just the level of community engagement and endorsement, but the further lengths to which he has gone to make this proposal stack up. The first of these is getting the users of the port involved as well as other agencies so that it is not just the community but it is backed up by other organisations locally.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.